An Ethnohistorical Overview of Groups with Ties to Fort Vancouver National Historic Site

362 Pages·2013·2.15 MB·English

An Ethnohistorical Overview of Groups with Ties to
Fort Vancouver National Historic Site

2011

Douglas Deur, Ph.D.
University of Washington
PNW Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit
An Ethnohistorical Overview of Groups with Ties to
Fort Vancouver National Historic Site

Douglas Deur, Ph.D.
2011

A view of Fort Vancouver from Henry Warre’s “Sketches in North America and the Oregon Territory,”1848.
Table of Contents

Introduction 1
Methods 5
Before the Hudson’s Bay Company 9
Questions of Tribal Affiliation in the Chinookan Realm 17
The Cascades 26
Clackamas 29
Multnomah 31
Skillute 32
Cowlitz, Klickitat, and other Area Tribes 33
A Case for Overlapping Claims 35
The Configuration of the Fort Vancouver Community 38
Navigating Trade Networks and Mutual Interests 42
Defense and Punishment on the Northwestern Frontier 50
Society and Structure in the Fort Vancouver Community 55
Strategic Marriages between HBC Employees and Native Women 60
Iroquois and Cree Employees 72
Slaves at Fort Vancouver 76
Changing Fortunes: The 1830s-1840s 85
Demographic Contractions 85
Chinookan Collapses and Relocations 90
Native Hawaiians at Fort Vancouver 93
The Expansion of Inland Tribes: The Klickitat and Cowlitz 101
Champoeg as a Daughter Community 110
Fort Vancouver as a Base for Missionary Efforts 113
The American Transition and Indian Wars, 1849-1879 122
Native Communities on the Eve of American Invasion 123
Growing American Interests and Hostilities toward the HBC 127
The Emergence of Vancouver Barracks 136
The Coast Reservation and the Extinguishment of Indian Title 140
Treaties and Peoples of Southwestern Washington & the Gorge 146
Vancouver Barracks in the Indian Wars of the 1850s 156
The Fate of the “Vancouver Indians” 163
The Fate of Remaining Klickitats and Cowlitz 171
The Fate of “Half Breeds” and Kanaka Village in the New Northwest 173
The Later Campaigns and Prisoners of Vancouver Barracks 181
Conclusions 191
Potentials for Further Research 193
Bibliography 196
Appendix: Account of Burials on the Lower Columbia River 230
Notes 237
i
Introduction

Among all of the places that feature prominently within the history of the Pacific
Northwest, few were as important as Fort Vancouver. And, among those places that
feature prominently within the region’s history, perhaps Fort Vancouver stands alone in
the sheer ethnic and racial diversity of its historical occupants. A contact point between
different tribal groups prior to European contact, the site occupied by Fort Vancouver
was uniquely well situated within the densely populated and resource-rich “Portland
Basin” – the lowland area surrounding the confluence of the Willamette and Columbia
Rivers. The site was positioned between two core areas of tribal settlement, one on the
Columbia Cascades upstream and the other at Sauvie Island and the confluence of the
Willamette and Columbia Rivers a short distance below. Moreover, the fort site sat
along traditional routes of travel, between the coast and the interior along the Columbia
River, and north and south through the Willamette and other River basins of what
would become western Oregon and Washington. It was located in an area where
diverse groups – resident Clackamas, Multnomah, and Cascades Chinooks, as well as
interior Klickitats, Cowlitz, Kalapuyas, and many others – converged for shared
resource harvests and trade long before the Hudson’s Bay Company was ever a
presence in the region.

Fort Vancouver was the administrative headquarters and main supply depot for the
Hudson’s Bay Company’s fur trading operations in the company’s immense Columbia
Department. The Fort was at the core of almost all political, cultural, and commercial
activities involving Euro-Americans in the Pacific Northwest during the 1820-1840s. A
diverse population congregated around the post for trade, employment, and security.
Constructing their fort at this site in 1824-25, the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC)
brought together a characteristically diverse group of fur traders – a cast assembled
largely before their arrival on the lower Columbia, during the Company’s more than
150-year history of trading furs across the North American frontier. Seeking men
skilled in the fur trade with few local loyalties, the HBC enlisted the services of
Iroquois, Cree, and Native Hawaiian men, in addition to a cadre of French Canadians,
Scots, Métis (mixed-race people of American Indian and European ancestry), and others
recruited from other HBC posts throughout northern North America to operate and
support the fort’s operations. In turn, these men married American Indian women from
within the region, frequently with the encouragement of HBC officers who recognized
the strategic advantages of such alliances to the Company’s interests. Over time,
American Indian traders and trappers converged at the fort - both in the “Village” (or
“Kanaka Village”) of mixed-race families that accreted on the fort’s margin, and in
preexisting Native villages a short distance away. Slaves from as far away as the
northern California Pit River and Shasta tribes, as well as from tribes up and down the
1
Pacific coast, lived within the mixed-race community of the fort and provided services
to households and HBC operations alike.

And yet, the story of Fort Vancouver is even more complex than this description might
suggest. The roughly 25 years of sole HBC occupation of the Fort Vancouver site
represented a period of dramatic demographic change, perhaps the most dramatic
changes ever known, on the lower Columbia River. Through the 1830s, the Chinookan
peoples and other tribes of the lower Columbia River region were decimated by
diseases. Some estimates suggest up to 90% of the population perished during the time
of HBC operations at Fort Vancouver. By the end of that decade, many spectators
describe the remaining Chinookans as scarce, while new peoples – Klickitats and other
tribes of the interior Northwest - were occupying their village sites and their
commercial roles in the Portland Basin. Through the 1840s, the HBC increasingly
looked inland, to interior tribes less affected by the epidemics or the initial
overexploitation of furs, for both trade alliances and intermarriages. By the early 1850s,
the arrival of the American military at Fort Vancouver dramatically transformed the
role of the fort for Pacific Northwest tribes. The Village community slowly dispersed
along numerous pathways, while tribes residing nearby were assigned to various
reservations, strategically positioned away from the growing non-Native settlements of
the Portland Basin. Between 1855 and 1879 – a period of almost precisely equal length
to the era of exclusive HBC occupation of Fort Vancouver – the Vancouver Barracks
became a place where Indians were gathered together in preparation for relocation to
reservations and where prisoners of war were detained from numerous Indian wars of
the West. Members of the Nez Perce, Paiute, Bannock, Shoshone, Yakama and other
tribes all were represented in the prisoner population of the Barracks. In the aggregate,
then, during the period of HBC management at Fort Vancouver, almost every tribe in
the Pacific Northwest had been represented in some way within the Fort Vancouver
population, as were various Native Hawaiian communities and eastern Canadian First
Nations.

All of these historical developments create distinctive challenges for the National Park
Service (NPS) staff seeking to manage the Fort Vancouver site and interpret its history
to the public. Unlike most other National Park Service Units, the multi-ethnic and
multi-tribal character of Fort Vancouver is central to the history and mandates of the
park. As a partner in the Vancouver National Historic Reserve (VNHR), Fort Vancouver
National Historic Site (FOVA) – a unit of the NPS - has taken the lead in protecting and
interpreting cultural resources within the Reserve. When taking on such tasks as telling
the Fort Vancouver history to the public, or making determinations as to which
American Indian tribes should be consulted when human remains are encountered,
NPS staff have been called upon to make decisions about historical tribal affiliation
based on the complex and sometimes elusive history of Native peoples at the fort. The
current document has been developed, in part, to provide a little more context and
clarity to these efforts.
2
This document summarizes the outcomes of an effort to identify the diverse human
populations associated with Fort Vancouver. Through a review of ethnographic,
historical, and ethnohistorical information found in various research libraries and
archives, this research has sought to illuminate the many reasons that Native Americans
converged at the fort and to reconstruct the paths taken by these people after their
departure. In the process, we are able to identify those modern communities that are
significantly linked to the history of Fort Vancouver – in turn, this will allow the NPS to
better engage these contemporary groups in the protection and public interpretation of
the park. The study represents what is sometimes termed a “traditional association
study,” within the National Park Service, a study that seeks to identify contemporary
populations that possess historical ties to a NPS unit, using historical and
ethnohistorical methods. Such studies represent a necessary first step for making
determinations of cultural affiliation under the terms of the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in the event of future inadvertent
discoveries on federal lands managed by the NPS. Beyond its NAGPRA implications,
however, the study will assist the NPS in interpretation of the site to the public, tribal
coordination for Section 106 of the NHPA, and in the maintenance of government-to-
government relations with American Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations.
The report should also have some value in developing interpretation on the park’s
history: a major goal in the park’s General Management Plan is to interpret “Kanaka
Village” to the public, and this study will provide a better means to interpret the multi-
cultural nature of the Village. Taking a principally ethnohistorical approach, this study
will also provide a baseline for future anthropological, sociological or other cultural
studies related to its core themes.

The current project was initiated to achieve these various goals by FOVA staff –
principally Drs. Douglas Wilson and Robert Cromwell – working in collaboration with
the Pacific-West Regional Anthropologist, Dr. Frederick York. The project was funded
with NPS Ethnography Program support and this funding was obligated to the
University of Washington Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit
(PNW-CESU) under cooperative agreement # CA9088A0008. Dr. Douglas Deur, of the
PNW-CESU, was the lead researcher for this research, and was responsible for carrying
out the investigations summarized in this document in collaboration with NPS staff.

In such a historically rich setting, establishing tribal affiliation is no easy task. The
majority of modern tribes in the Pacific Northwest arguably have a credible basis for
claiming some level of association with Fort Vancouver. There are those who have
especially strong historical connections, such as Grand Ronde, Cowlitz, Warm Springs,
and Yakama, as well as the federally unrecognized Chinook Indian Nation and
Cascades Tribes. Yet, there are innumerable tribes who have more passing associations
– with tribal sub-groups, families, or individuals who were connected to the fort as
residents, visitors, slaves, labor, or prisoners. Adding complexity to this picture, a
3
significant number of the American Indians and (to a lesser degree) Native Hawaiians
who became part of the multi-racial community at Fort Vancouver did not return to
their home communities, so that their descendents do not live among their tribes of
origin. More complex still, a good portion of the mixed-race community of Fort
Vancouver were ultimately absorbed into the larger population of Euro-American
settlers, so that some modern individuals who would categorize themselves as “non-
Indian” are also descended from the multiethnic community that converged for a time
at Fort Vancouver. While these non-Native descendents have no standing under
NAGPRA and other federal laws and policies relating to American Indians, they are
still among the descendents who may yet possess a keen personal interest in the fate of
human remains, or the content of public interpretation, uncovered at Fort Vancouver.

This diversity of descendents clearly echoes the diversity of the original fort
community. The diffuse identities of the various descendent populations of the Fort
Vancouver community presents this park’s staff with some unique challenges
compared to many other units of the National Park Service, in that they have sought to
consult with, and respond to the concerns of, an unusually long list of “traditionally
associated populations.” This is no easy task, especially in light of the narrowly-defined
legal and policy context in which American Indian consultation must take place. Yet,
there is a hopeful message that can come from an understanding of these complexities,
and indeed from the larger history of the fort’s multiracial and multiethnic community.
The modern descendents of Fort Vancouver’s tribal population, while diverse and with
interests that are occasionally at odds with one-another, possess a common history and
shared interests. If consultation and communication between these groups proceeds
from an understanding of these shared interests, the management and interpretation of
Fort Vancouver may yet help to foster cross-cultural understanding and to provide a
key point of historical reference in an increasingly multiethnic modern Pacific
Northwest region. Perhaps this may prove an appropriate way to honor the memory of
the ancestors who lived in this place - most of whom had to navigate the unparalleled
racial and ethnic heterogeneity of the Fort Vancouver community during the 19th
century.

4
Methods

The current study seeks to illuminate past patterns of use and occupation of Fort
Vancouver by Native Americans using the methods of ethnohistory. As such, this
research involved a broad review of historical and ethnographic information on these
themes. All research was carried out by Dr. Douglas Deur of the University of
Washington and Portland State University, with the support of two research assistants –
Deborah Confer and Patrick Hammons. In addition to receiving valuable help from
these assistants, Dr. Deur was aided significantly in this research by Drs. Fred York,
Robert Cromwell, and Doug Wilson of the National Park Service, while also receiving
some assistance from cultural resource staffs working for various tribes with ties to Fort
Vancouver.

The research involved a review of existing documentation, including a reading of the
vast historical literature relating to Fort Vancouver as well as ethnographic writings
relating to those tribes who appear to have the most direct ties to the fort. This work
was conducted principally in the collections of both the University of Washington and
Portland State University. A few materials were also consulted in the library collections
of the University of Oregon. Certain publications were of particular value, such as the
work of Harriet Duncan Munnick (1972, 1974) who summarized the birth, marriage,
and burial data from the mission of Fathers Blanchet and Demers at Fort Vancouver; we
also reviewed in excess of 100 published traveler’s accounts of the lower Columbia
River region in search of pertinent details. Also of particular value in these research
library collections were various theses and dissertations that presented detailed
information regarding the fort’s multi-ethnic community (e.g., Kardas 1971).

In addition, and perhaps more importantly, this research involved a detailed review of
archival materials relating to the study’s themes in local, regional, and national
collections. The information gathered in these collections was used to fill gaps in the
existing, published record. We conducted a review of materials available in the Fort
Vancouver research library, especially the vast collection of John Hussey’s papers, as
well as archaeological documents and other “gray literature” reports, as well as lists
produced by NPS staff and contractors of former HBC employees and residents of the
fort (e.g. Beechert 2001; York n.d.). At the Oregon Historical Society Library, we
reviewed collections of papers from individuals associated with Fort Vancouver
historically (including but not limited to the Ermatinger collections, the Narcissa
Whitman papers, and the Gray family papers), as well as collections pertaining to
Indian removal to reservation communities (especially the papers of Joel Palmer) and a
variety of genealogical files for families associated with Fort Vancouver and Champoeg.
We also reviewed documents from their archaeological sites vertical file folders and
photo collections. We obtained a small number of sources from the University of
Washington Special Collections, such as the William Fraser Tolmie papers and the
ethnographic notes in the Melville Jacobs and Pacific Northwest Collections. We
5
obtained selected materials from the Washington State Historical Society (Tacoma) the
Clark County Historical Museum and Genealogical Society (Vancouver, WA) –
principally publications, pamphlets and electronic resources related to the study’s core
themes.

We also reviewed a number of documents from the Hudson’s Bay Company Archives
in Winnipeg, ordering rolls of microfilm for relevant documents such as employment
records, Indian store records and reports alluding to Indians living near the fort. The
correspondence of John McLoughlin and other Fort Vancouver officers was of
particular value and we reviewed this correspondence in particular detail. McLoughlin
especially was under orders to provide ethnographic information in his correspondence
with the HBC Governor and Committee, and this information was of value in the
current effort.1 A few items were obtained remotely from the American Philosophical
Society and Smithsonian Institution archives, including ethnographic accounts of
particular tribes and the George Gibbs materials respectively.

Using the federal National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) collections,
we also reviewed all Indian Claims Commission (ICC) documents, including published
and unpublished materials available for all adjudicated lands within a roughly 150 mile
radius of Fort Vancouver. These included those of Chinook (Dockets 176, 234), Cowlitz
(Dockets 218, 208,175), Chehalis (Docket 237), Yakama (Dockets 47, 98, 161, 164, 165),
and Warm Springs materials (Dockets 104, 198), as well as dockets relating to the claims
of Clatsop (Docket 105), Nehalem (Dockets 106, 240) and Tillamook (Dockets 107, 239,
240) that include parenthetical information about the Portland Basin. For each of these
dockets, we reviewed all relevant expert testimony reports, oral testimony transcripts,
and printed notices of ICC findings.

At the Sand Point NARA archives, we also reviewed all relevant sections of available
records including those in Record Group 75 (including, but not limited to, the Letters of
the Oregon Indian Superintendency, Letters of the Washington Indian
Superintendency, and Special Files of the Office of Indian Affairs); Records Groups 48
(Records of the Office of the Secretary of the Interior Letters received from the War
Department, 1/1876-12/1880); Record Group 94 (Returns from U.S. Military Posts,
Correspondence from Indian wars; Reports of Post Officers, and others). All relevant
post reports were reviewed for Vancouver Barracks (Sept. 1849-Dec. 1892) as well as
Camp Harney, Fort Lapwai, and Fort Klamath – all forts that were under the command
of Vancouver Barracks officers and sometimes sent Indian prisoners to the barracks as
well. Relevant congressional documents were reviewed, as well as Indian Agency
reports for all of the agencies with jurisdiction in southwest Washington and northwest
Oregon.

Using the information we gathered from these sources, we sought to understand the
experiences of Native American peoples who were connected to the Fort, so as to place
6
the question of tribal affiliation in a larger historical and cultural context. We also
attempted to trace the histories of these various tribal populations into the 20th century
so that we might better illuminate the connections between peoples mentioned at the
historical fort and identifiable American Indian tribes and other Native American
groups today. This information is presented thematically in the pages that follow. As
an NPS “overview and assessment” document, the report seeks to illuminate the
identity and post-contact history of peoples traditionally associated with Fort
Vancouver in a manner that refers to existing documentation, but expands upon it
through a thematic overview and analysis. Biographical sketches of individual Fort
Vancouver residents and employees were not attempted, though biographical
information was gathered regarding some individuals in the course of this research.
Some preliminary efforts have been made in this direction by other researchers as well
(e.g., Beechert n.d., York n.d.); a separate research effort, involving the gathering of such
biographical information, may be worth pursuing.

Certainly, defining the tribal affiliations of particular individuals or groups is not
always a simple matter. Early chroniclers’ use of tribal terminology was often inexact.
Names like “Chinook” might be used indiscriminately for peoples encountered on the
lower Columbia; “Klickitat” for upland groups, “Shasta” for slaves, even when the
actual provenience of these tribes was unclear. A number of observers comment on how
difficult it is to differentiate tribal groups based on appearance, and most observers scarcely
attempted to draw distinctions. Ambiguities in affiliation are noted where appropriate in
the document, and we have made efforts to clarify these ambiguities through the cross-
referencing of diverse source materials.

One of the goals of this effort has been to provide NPS staff and tribes with ample
original source material that can be used in the management and interpretation of Fort
Vancouver’s Native American history. Toward this end, original sources have been
quoted extensively in this document and extended quotations on certain themes are
provided in endnotes to this report. It is hoped that these quotations from original
sources will be of use to readers who wish to follow up on specific themes, and that
these extended quotations can be used by tribes and NPS staff alike in assessing
particular details of Fort Vancouver history. However, a word of warning: containing
extensive excerpts from 19th century writers, this document contains quotations that
reveal the original authors’ racist and ethnocentric statements regarding indigenous
peoples; as these statements are revealing of the nature of the cross-cultural encounter
on the lower Columbia River, some potentially offensive language was not expunged or
sanitized.

Another goal of this project has been to assist the National Park Service in updating the
list of American Indian tribes, tribal organizations, Native Hawaiians and Canadian
First Nations who should be contacted in the course of NAGPRA compliance and other
consultation activities by the NPS. Upon final NPS review and approval of this report,
7